I’m sitting on a couple of hiring committes at the college. (We’re hiring some English profs, and a new Africanist for our history program). Today, we met with the dean of Human Resources to get the usual talk about confidentiality, and the now-customary reminder about how our committee must comply with the mandates of California Proposition 209 (which banned most forms of affirmative action) while still ensuring a “diverse” applicant pool. Our HR head, Jorge, is a very agreeable sort, and he and I have had many good chats in recent years.
During a break, he came up to me. “Hugo, I meant to tell you. Last fall I got a couple of complaints about your blog. Someone wrote me a long letter demanding you be fired. I checked out your blog, but I can’t remember what it was that got them so upset. I told them about academic freedom and so forth, but I thought you should know.”
Jorge and I rolled our eyes together at the silliness of the world. I wasn’t troubled by fear for my job, because I do know that tenure is darn-near inviolate, and unless I lapse into manifest incompetence or rob a bank, I’m untouchable. But jeez, if I didn’t have the seniority I do, I would have felt very uncomfortable today. And honestly, I’m a little bit sad. I know I have annoyed a variety of people, but until today, had no idea that anyone would go to the lengths of writing a letter (backed up with more than one phone call to the vice-president) in order to get me terminated.
I blog under my own name for a reason. Look me up on the campus website, and you’ll find my office number and my office hours. Maybe it’s a mixture of naivete and arrogance, but I don’t think I have a damn thing to fear from anyone. It’s not as if I’m running for Senate. But gosh almighty, it peeves me that someone would go this far.
And you know, when the Lord blesses us with children, I may be a bit more careful about how open I am. If I can make someone angry enough to try and get me fired, I wonder if I could make an already unstable someone angry enough to go to the point of physical violence. And while the childless man can say “bring it on!”, the prospective father has to be more careful.
You know, a lot of people don’t appreciate free speech. My husband’s been threatened with law suits for things I’ve written in my blog.
Hugo,
I am a long time reader who loves your blog. And though I’ve never commented before I just had to chime in here and say I’m sorry. I’m sorry that people can be such babies who are unable to realize that people can have opinions other than their own. I am so glad that you do not have to really worry about this because of tenure. And I am not usually a fan of tenure. It is so sad that people today are unable to process that we are not all alike in our ideas or thoughts or the way we live our lives. It’s even more sad that we live in an age of such cowardice that the person couldn’t confront you directly. But saddest of all? Their apparent need for “revenge”… I can only offer you my thanks and support here.
I must admit, I check your blog daily and have come to learn so much about Feminism. Before I found your blog, I thought I had a good grasp on feminist issues. But, the longer I read the more I realize I have so much more to learn. Thank you for blogging and helping me. Thanks will come from many other readers too, I’m sure. My only disappointment is that I live in Florida so I probably won’t be taking any of your classes on Women’s Studies.
Keep up the great work.
M.K.
Wow, I’m really sorry to hear that, and I’m glad your tenure offers you professional protection.
WTF? You don’t have anything on here that’s objectionable. I don’t approve of tenure myself - defend your performance like everyone else in the workforce - but I’m glad it’s protecting you from this schmuck.
I like tenure. I don’t have it, but I’m glad my mom had it. She was, and continues to be, a great teacher and deserves it.
Who was it, one of the fringe MRAs who thinks Glenn Sacks is a wimpy feminist sympathizer?
Would your university use this blog as grounds for dismissing you if you did not have tenure? I am guessing not (unless they already wanted to fire you for some other reasons).
In and of itself, probably not, Bob. But could they make it part of a larger case? Sure.
I think it comes with the territory of being a public figure. Which you might be becoming, to a certain extent!
By the way, it was nice to meet you at Whole Foods a while back. (I’m also the Jill of Eye Level Pasadena.) After we ran into you, I was telling my friend about what a thoughtful blog you wrote. I don’t comment here much, but I find your posts very useful.
I would certainly hope your colleagues would have the character to stand by you whatever you write on your blog, Hugo. And I agree that trying to destroy a person’s personal or professional life for their views violates the basic trust on which the Internet depends. I hope we develop an Internet structure and ethos which prevents such things.
I’m not one of your biggest fans, and even though I have some reservations about your teaching abilities concerning women of color, I can’t imagine doing something like this. It’s just despicable to go after someone’s job because you disagree with them on the internet.
I appreciate the very kind words from all of you, thank you — particularly, Donna, from you. We can indeed have some degree of solidarity in the face of often intense disagreement.
My feelings were hurt, and I felt sad. But I was also angry — angry less for my own sake, but for others who are open about their identity in their blogosphere, and who lack the employment protections I enjoy. The fact that I get to be sad rather than fearful is due more to luck than anything else.
I had something similar happen. I used to have a website that jokingly described myself as someone who would wait behind trees on campus, leap out at people, and shove a Bible literally down their throat. It was so over-the-top that I couldn’t imagine anyone thinking it was serious. Nevertheless, my immediate supervisor called me up one time to warn me that someone had enrolled in my class, seen that webpage, and then called her to ask if they were sure I could teach ethics classes in an unbiased way. It turned out the student in question was a continuing education student (probably early 30s) who saw a large part of her identity as consisting of things like volunteering at Planned Parenthood, and she just couldn’t imagine how an outspoken Christian could at the same time teach an ethics class in an unbiased way. She ended up loving the class (and I think she got an A), and my job was never at risk, but it was a strange incident.
Oh, and I should add that this wasn’t even as an untenured tenure-track faculty member. I’m still a Ph.D. student, and I was teaching in the continuing education program as an adjunct with semester-by-semester contracts.
A friend of mine recently had his house firebombed for his politics (he’s a communist, and has opposed a neo-nazi group moving into town), so I for one think you should take any threats that come in over your blog very seriously.
mythago
Feb 29th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Who was it, one of the fringe MRAs who thinks Glenn Sacks is a wimpy feminist sympathizer?
I suppose he pissed off one too many, but not related to the Men’s Rights Movement.
MRAs are not into deleting, editing and banning, Mythago, and you should already know this. Unlike feminists, MRAs are promoting free speech and do not backbite.
Hugo, you have my sympathy. Granted, it is highly doubtful that given your political views your job would actually be at risk, but it is disconcerting that anyone who wished to get you fired could use your opinions as a reason. I would like to add that this experience is not unique to people with your political views. Many on the other side are also subjected to that kind of threat.
Yohan, even if I thought you spoke for the entire MRA movement, even if I believed your Wonderland claim that the MRA movement is the one interest group in the history of civilization that never has had any backbiting, internal politics or factionalism, even if we assumed that all MRAs are perfect, ideal human beings who are so dedicated to free speech that not a one of them would CONSIDER complaining, banning or deleting -
I do receive Glenn’s newsletter and your claim that he is getting flak “not related to the Men’s Rights Movement” is unadulterated crap. MRAs are human beings, and like every other interest group (yes, I include feminism in that), it has its fanatics, its purists, its people who are attracted to the group for all the wrong reasons. Glenn Sacks is regularly attacked by people who think there is something un-MRA like about gay rights, or who are angry that he refuses to excuse Darren Mack’s actions by pretending the guy is some kind of victimized dad.
So while I understand your interest in pretending that the entire men’s-rights movement is an army of paragons, you can’t seriously expect me to believe it.
Uh, before this goes any further, this is not a subtle springboard for anti-feminist diatribe, or the old canard “the Left does the real threatening in this country”. (Or anywhere else).
The point is that blogging publicly has certain risks, and how we cope with those risks is an important issue for any blogger. This isn’t the time or place to debate comment moderation policies, save to remind all that this is a feminist blog, and not the Hyde Park speaker’s corner.
Hugo, I’m really surprised this would happen. Even if an MRA type wrote such a letter, I’m surprised as hell it would be taken seriously by the administration. You’re pretty PC, from what I can tell.
Yohan wrote:
I suppose he pissed off one too many, but not related to the Men’s Rights Movement.
@mythago: I think, you misunderstood my comment. With ‘HE’ I was referring to Hugo, and not to Glenn Sacks.
Hugo has pissed off many, and obviously one too many. And it was your question ‘Who was it?’ - and not my question, but Hugo did not reply so far…so I presume, it cannot be someone out of the MRA-movement.
You cannot deny, there are others not related to MRAs, who might not appreciate Hugo’s behaviour…think about possible disappointed lovers, ex-wives, female students around him, radical feminists (he banned them from his blog…)…etc.
For me, Hugo is the funny type of a ‘male feminist’ - waxing, masturbation, boys dress and desire, or surgery, sex, shame and paternalistic feminism…
MRAs are open to humour - I see no reason for the MRAs to backbite…as I said, MRAs are not feminists.
Yohan, you’re not really saying anything new. Or persuasive.
Yohan, you’re done here.
Mythago:
One thing I believe after 20-odd years of research into computer and internet ethics: you can’t deal with misbehaviour by making it into a club to whack the “other side” with. Sustaining the trust on which a community depends ranks as a categorical imperative; everyone has to do it, and everyone has to uphold the obligation to do it. On the Internet, we have little or no power to impose “real” consequences for misbehaviour; we have only the moral force of our disapproval. That can work; the thought of a large community rejecting your actions, turning away, discounting your arguments does have a lot of persuasive power. But we dissipate that effect if we don’t hold our best friends to the same standard as our worst enemies.
This has a practical basis. To work, disapproval has to come close to unanimity. If someone who violates the trust we all depend on when we put our opinions out on the net knows that a like-minded community will rally around them, the thought of disapproval from the “other side” won’t bother them. In this sense, whatever our ability to trust when we write on the net depends on reciprocity; people who disagree with Hugo should condemn efforts to visit “real world” consequences on what he says, and in return his supporters must condemn just as loudly someone who does the same to one of your opponents (insert MRA name here). It really only works that way.
John, I’m not really sure why you’re addressing your post to me. I feel as though I’m simply a screen where you’re projecting your imagine of being Golden Mean Man. Really, where did I suggest that it would be OK for Hugo to call an MRA’s supervisor and suggest that person be fired?
Yohan, you’re done here.
Why is he done here? It doesn’t appear that he has said anything out of line.
If I can make someone angry enough to try and get me fired, I wonder if I could make an already unstable someone angry enough to go to the point of physical violence. And while the childless man can say “bring it on!”, the prospective father has to be more careful.
That’s a bit of a red herring. You’re not saying, “bring it on.”
Warren, anti-feminist invective, even subtle, is not okay. I’m tired of it; I’ve entertained the MRAs long enough. Those who self-identify as MRA are no longer welcome as my commenters unless they confine themselves to the topic at hand and avoid personal attacks of one kind or another on me or other feminists.
I addressed my post to you because you wrote, earlier, the following post:
I think attributing Internet misbehaviour to people you ideologically oppose, if done without evidence, harms the larger project of encouraging the basic Internet trust that allows free speech.
Never, and I didn’t suggest you had. I did say, and I believe, and I will maintain, that only one way exists to keep and build on the basic trust that keeps the Internet (relatively) free; we have to condemn everyone who violates that trust, and we have to make our readiness to do so clear. It doesn’t do to simply avoid suggesting that we would condone real-life vendettas based on Internet disagreements; other people have to trust us to condemn without reservation those who do, even if we agree with them in other respects. In my opinion, making unfounded assumptions that an offender comes from a group you disagree with does not help.